What Is the "Respectable Center?"

Citing Jeffrey Rosen's atrocious and embarassing piece, Marc Ambinder defines Rosen as the "Respectable Center."

There was nothing "respectable" about Rosen's piece, it was an embarassment. And his unbridled defenses and support for now Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito make clear that he is by no stretch of the imagination in the Center. He is Neocon Right Center - a sort of Stuart Taylor. That's not the Center. Marc Ambinder is simply accepting the Village Wisdom.

Interestingly, Ambinder deigns to give "advice" to the "Left" on how to fight these fights. My first piece of advice remains the same - NEVER EVER let people like Marc Ambinder define what the Center is. People like Rosen, Taylor and Ambinder are of the Center Right, at best. That's who they are. Knowing that and SAYING That is step one in this process imo.

Speaking for me only

< Supreme Court: Making Up SS Number Is Not Identity Theft | Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    there's nothing respectable about (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Turkana on Tue May 05, 2009 at 01:43:38 PM EST
    the center. unless you're into roadkill.

    ARGH (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by lilburro on Tue May 05, 2009 at 01:44:26 PM EST
    Sotomayor is seen as a compassionate voice for the underprivileged, and she has a solid, if unspectacular, record of jurisprudence.

    And that comes from Ambinder's in depth analysis of Sotomayor's opinions?

    The media has decided to play a game with Sotomayor.  Ambinder is happy to join in.  I agree with this diarist that dogwhistles abound.  


    So she is an assertive, hard-working Puerto Rican from the projects, who rose up from poverty to attend Princeton, where she graduated summa cum laude, and then went onto Yale, where she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal.

    Yeah.  A real dumb broad.

    Too often criticisms of women are not based on either their qualifications, or expertise, but on their "temperament".  Women of color get hit doubly, combining sexism and racism.  

    Well, (none / 0) (#3)
    by bocajeff on Tue May 05, 2009 at 02:22:06 PM EST
    Personal stories are interesting. But I couldn't care less unless I'm having dinner with person.

    She is assertive? Big deal. Hard working? ok. PR from the projects? Nice, but again, don't care. Rose up from poverty to go to Princeton? Nice, but irrelevant.

    She is a judge. That's all I care about. Her views on the law. I'd take a rich, white, male lousy lawyer from a public school who gets the law than someone with her story who may not get it.


    You'd have a point (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by CST on Tue May 05, 2009 at 02:32:36 PM EST
    if the arguments against her wer about her views on the law.  But they aren't.  They are about her personality.

    Well done (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 05, 2009 at 02:35:44 PM EST
    Then take it up (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by lilburro on Tue May 05, 2009 at 02:35:52 PM EST
    with Rosen and Ambinder.  They are the ones making "temperament" and so-called lack of intelligence an issue.

    The point of the bio is to demonstrate that it's quite doubtful she's just some idiot.  And if you really think she's an idiot, the best thing to do would be to read and argue against her opinions.  Which hasn't happened anywhere that I've seen.


    Also well done (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 05, 2009 at 02:36:27 PM EST
    Nobody said she's a dumb broad. Nobody. (none / 0) (#10)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue May 05, 2009 at 06:53:08 PM EST
    The question is whether she can hold he own in a cage match with the likes of Scalia.

    The Right has outmaneuvered the Left, tactically and strategically, for too long. We have no champion left on the high court, and few in the next level(s) down.

    It's not about how they might vote. It's about how and what they might argue, and write.


    Ruth Bader Ginsburg is, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oldpro on Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:02:47 PM EST
    for my money, 'our' champion on the court.  Think not?  From what I hear she takes on Scalia with a vengeance and no holding back.

    As I understood WJC's appt scheme ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:20:21 PM EST
    ... the first two appointments were intended to restore balance to the court by adding judicial weight in (or near) the center. Radical! (And brilliant, IMO.)

    This was to be followed by a progressive champion type, likely a pol rather than a judge, who would combine passion for justice with tide-turning intellectual chops.

    Too bad the climate changed.

    RBG is not afraid to take on Scalia, true, but taking him on is not enough.


    Never enough...not in my (none / 0) (#14)
    by oldpro on Tue May 05, 2009 at 09:51:11 PM EST

    I hear she feels lonely on the court, now that she's the lone female.

    Let's hope Obama sends her a spunky companion.


    Thus far (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by lilburro on Tue May 05, 2009 at 02:56:58 PM EST
    I am totally unimpressed with the criticisms of Sotomayor.  I hope the netroots can be brought consistently to stand against sexism/racism if a woman (of color) is appointed to the position.

    Ambinder is another, like Rosen (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ruffian on Tue May 05, 2009 at 03:16:51 PM EST
    who relies on anonymous sources a bit too much for my taste. As lilburro says:

    And if you really think she's an idiot, the best thing to do would be to read and argue against her opinions.

    Heck, they can do that under their own names and everything.

    This is especially important to people like me, who have no legal expertise and do not have a list in our heads as to who should be in the pool of SCOTUS nominees. I rely heavily on bloggers like I find here, and also Dahlia Lithwick and Glenn Greenwald. I want to see real information. This is important.

    Greenwald went to town on (none / 0) (#12)
    by oldpro on Tue May 05, 2009 at 08:11:21 PM EST
    Rosen and the gossipy, anonymous detractors with updates.

    Interesting connection between Rosen and another possible candidate through his (Rosen's) brother-in-law, second in command at solicitor general's office!  Rings true to me that "something is rotten in the State of Denmark!"